Friday, October 23, 2009

End the Occupation: A Mission for the Oath-Keepers

One Nation, under Occupation: Police departments nation-wide are acting as if this were a conquered country, and as if citizens were "enemy combatants."

A thin blanket of early evening darkness had draped itself across Alex Locklear's home in Maxton, North Carolina when the armed intruders arrived.

Brandishing firearms, the invaders forced several people -- including wheelchair-bound Nicholas Locklear and a pregnant woman -- to the ground and then barged in through the rear door, threatening to "blow the brains" out of anyone who put up a struggle. One woman was so terrified that she fled, tripped over an unseen obstruction, and broke her arm.

The arrival of an unmarked police car with its blue running lights flashing must have provided the victims of the home invasion with a moment's relief. But that relief would have quickly turned to a different flavor of alarm when the victims realized that their assailants were the police.

Under the pretext of a drug search, the five-man robbery crew ransacked the Locklear home in search of large amounts of cash that could be "forfeited" -- that is, stolen -- as alleged drug proceeds. The robbers had to be content with the $200 they found in Alex Locklear's bedroom, which is all they could put their hands on before piling into the police car and pulling away with such reckless haste that the vehicle shed one of its front hubcaps.

Locklear, who returned shortly after the robbery, reported the crime to the Robeson County Sheriff's Office, giving descriptions of the assailants and their vehicle. Not surprisingly, the Sheriff didn't follow up on that solid lead, because the robbery had been spearheaded by Robeson County Deputy Sheriff Vincent Sinclair, a member of the department's drug enforcement unit.

The March 14, 2004 robbery most likely came about because the Sheriff's Department discovered that Locklear had cashed a large check to pay workers on his 400-acre farm before heading for a motorcycle rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. And that assault differed only in detail from similar outrages taking place every single day in the purported Land of the Free.

The chances are pretty good that as you read these words, paramilitary attacks -- commonly described as "no-knock raids" -- are either being planned or executed somewhere in the U.S. Typically carried out by the military units called SWAT or tactical teams, those raids are generally triggered by a tip from a "confidential informant" -- a paid snitch -- and subsidized with federal funds, often through the "Justice" Department's Byrne Grant program.

Ironically, those on the receiving end of such "authorized" assaults are often treated even worse than the victims of the raid on the Locklear home.

When property is damaged or innocent people are injured or killed in the course of an "authorized" home invasion, police can generally expect to be held blameless, since any action they perceive as a potential threat supposedly justifies the use of deadly force.

According to Harris County District Attorney John B. Holmes, Jr., the violent death of Navarro at the hands of the police was not a crime, because "the law does not allow anyone to resist arrest, even an illegal one" -- and that therefore Navarro's murderers "had a right to use deadly force ... if he threatened them."

A common scene in an occupied land: Just your friendly neighborhood JBT, chillin' outside a really tricked-out armored vehicle.

Holmes is a prosecutor, so it's not surprising that he lied about the right to resist an illegal arrest. But his assumption that police have the "right" to kill anyone who resists is almost universally shared within both law enforcement and the "Justice" system.

Apparently, Deputy Sinclair and his gang didn't realize the extent of their official impunity: Had they known that they had the "right" to kill anyone who resisted their illegal invasion, it's likely that someone would have died at the Locklear home.

Like many corrupt police in such circumstances, however, the raiders left a relatively light footprint, most likely out of concern that leaving a corpse or two behind would lead to compromising questions. If their paperwork had been in order, they wouldn't have had to display such restraint.

Deputies assigned to narcotics duty committed a string of crimes, some of them acts of state-sponsored terrorism -- such as fire-bombing homes of suspected drug dealers, or hiring arsonists to burn down the homes of personal enemies. On one occasion, a deputy doused a recalcitrant suspect with lighter fluid and set him on fire. Drug dealers who cooperated were protected from prosecution; one was even given a gun and a police uniform and permitted to take part in a raid.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars were stolen from people under the pretext of drug asset "forfeiture," with much of it skimmed away for personal use without being reported. District Attorney Johnson Britt noticed a bloc of deputies who were living beyond what he assumed to be their means: They bought boats or other expensive recreational vehicles, took cruise ship vacations together, even went in as a group for Lasik eye surgery.

Britt contacted the Feds, and soon enough the Feds discovered that the Robeson drug cops were skimming from the profits of the local forfeiture racket. Presumably, if the cops had been faithfully reporting their haul and content with the kickback the Feds provided, or even if their corruption had been contained and relatively modest, the Feds wouldn't have intervened. As it happens, however, dozens of Robeson cops and deputies were put on trial for stealing "federal funds" -- meaning the cash that was seized at gunpoint from people suspected, but not convicted, of drug-related offenses.

For several years, Brian Gilbert, Sheriff of Iowa's Dallas County, ran a very lucrative theft ring. Dallas County sits astride a very well-traveled stretch of I-80, the country's major east-west interstate. Gilbert and his deputies preyed heavily on people driving late-model SUVs with out-of-state license plates -- particularly drivers who appeared to be of Latino extraction.

Stopped for alleged traffic infractions, the drivers would be threatened with prosecution for drug-related offenses -- such as "money laundering" -- if they were found to be in possession of significant amounts of cash. That trouble could be avoided if the drivers simply surrendered their vehicles and money to the county.

Police in Kingsville, Texas have been more disciplined than Gilbert and his gang in Iowa. Because that tiny town is located along Highway 77, a route often used by suspected drug couriers, police have been able to confiscate millions in putative drug proceeds, with eighty percent of what they steal going directly into the city budget. This is why the exceptionally well-paid police in that town of 25,000 have tricked-out high-performance cop cars and all the latest digital toys.

It's important to italicize the fact that the people from whom this money is stolen have not been convicted of crimes -- or even, in most cases, formally accused of crimes. All that is required is the presence of a large amount of cash coupled with an assertion by self-interested law enforcement officers that there is a suspected "nexus" to drug activity of some kind.

A recent federal court decision (entitled -- I'm not kidding -- United States of America v. $124,700, in U.S. Currency) held, in effect, that traveling with a large amount of currency offers sufficient probable cause to justify a narcotics-related forfeiture. Once the proper incantations are uttered and the requisite paperwork is filled out in the typical tax-feeder's sub-literate scrawl, the money itself is found "guilty" and taken into government custody.

Should money or items of value be found, the motorist and passengers are then placed under arrest for "money laundering" or drug-related charges, and then given an ultimatum: Sign away their property or face prosecution. This form of extortion-robbery is particularly effective when the victim is carrying an abnormal but relatively small amount of cash -- say, less than $5,000 -- that wouldn't be enough to compensate for the hassle and expense of mounting a legal defense.

In one of the cases described in the lawsuit, an individual named Danny Green who works as an investigator for the Shelby County Prosecutor's Office threatened to kidnap a couple's children if they didn't sign a document surrendering about $6,000 in cash.

Nope, that isn't David Allen Coe: This vision of feminine refinement is Shelby County District Attorney Lynda Russell (a Republican, natch), a Queenpin (as it were) of the county's forfeiture mob.

If this kind of thing were taking place only in isolated, one-stoplight, speed-trap towns like Tenaha -- places where the local government is the malodorous residue at the bottom of a very shallow gene pool -- it would be disgusting, but avoidable.

But this kind of outright larceny under color of "law" is underway wherever the Feds have fomented an official crime spree in the name of the "war on drugs."

We really shouldn't perceive the "war on drugs" in metaphorical terms. This is an actual war, albeit one that targets individual liberties, rather than illicit commerce.

Thanks to this war, innocent people are frequently terrorized by military assaults on their homes, and injured or even killed without legal consequence. It's because of this war that travelers have a fully justified fear of being illegally detained and robbed at gunpoint by people in government-issued costumes.

That homefront war inspired "exceptions" to the posse comitatus law to permit the hands-on involvement of the military in domestic law enforcement. Even more alarming is the fact that it led directly to the federalization and militarization of law enforcement -- which means that the police themselves are, in effect, an army of occupation right now.

This state of affairs suggests a vitally important mission for the movement called "Oath Keepers" -- an association of retired and active-duty law enforcement and military personnel who define their allegiance in terms of fidelity to the Constitution, rather than loyalty or obedience to political officials.

As men committed to the Constitution, Oath Keepers have made it clear that there are at least ten specific kinds of orders they will not obey -- orders to disarm American civilians, conduct warrantless searches, blockade or interdict American cities, invade and subjugate states that assert their reserved powers and constitutional sovereignty, subject citizens to military tribunals, enforce martial law decrees, or otherwise undermine or infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed individual rights of Americans.

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes explains that Oath Keepers will stand down rather than carry out such illegal orders, and be prepared to defend law-abiding citizens against the aggression of a lawless government. Predictably, Oath Keepers has been identified as a domestic enemy by Morris Dees' for-profit Stasi, the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

According to the SPLC and its allies in the government-aligned media, the principled refusal of Oath Keepers to carry out criminal violence against innocent citizens is a variety of terrorism, or at least something akin to terrorism.

During a recent installment of Chris Matthews' cable television program, Matthews and SPLC apparatchik Mark Potok did their level best to contort comments made by Oath Keepers founder Rhodes into an endorsement of insurrectionary violence.

Matthews, who appears to be bucking for a Daytime Emmy, theatrically feigned incredulity that any responsible person could believe it possible that concentration camps could be erected on American soil -- ignoring such trivial matters as the WWII-era detention of Japanese-Americans and the hideous treatment of American Indians during the 19th Century. For his part, Potok insisted that Oath Keepers were cultivating terrorism by spreading alarmist rhetoric about the possibility of martial law.

Bear in mind that the SPLC's core fund-raising activity consists of hitting up elderly donors with appeal letters that traffic in alarmist rhetoric that treats the tiny, inconsequential white supremacist movement as nothing less than the Fourth Reich on the March.

To judge from the SPLC's standard spiel, the most significant threat to individual rights comes from toothless cretins in Klan regalia and socially inept Nazi wanna-bes with man-boobs. Meanwhile, black Americans, Latinos, and other people for whom the SPLC displays such supposed solicitude are being terrorized by armed government officials who are carrying out a very literal war within our borders.

This presents Oath Keepers with a splendid PR opportunity that should become one of its most important ongoing campaigns: Why doesn't that organization reach out to another estimable group, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, in demanding an end to the "war on drugs"?

Most of the unconscionable acts and policies the Oath Keepers oppose -- wholesale violation of individual rights, detentions, confiscations, civilian disarmament, militarization of domestic law enforcement -- are not a vague future possibility, but rather a tangible reality right now because of the "war on drugs."

Most, but by no means all, of the victims of that war are non-white Americans. It would be entertaining to watching the SPLC try to explain how Oath Keepers could qualify as a "hate group" even as they took up the cause of black and Hispanic Americans suffering official abuse by way of the "war on drugs."

Valuable as it is for Oath Keepers to inoculate police and military personnel against the prospect of wholesale martial law, the group should be urging such personnel to stand down right now when it comes to carrying out manifestly unconstitutional and anti-American drug war policies.

The Oath Keepers should urge police and Sheriff's Departments to reject counter-narcotics grants and federal subsidies of any kind, including equipment transfers and other material support from the Pentagon. They should find the honest and principled law enforcement personnel who are mortified by the transformation of so many police and Sheriff's departments into criminal syndicates through the practice of "asset forfeiture." And they should take the point in reining in the ever-expanding use of SWAT teams (as a prelude to abolishing them outright, of course).

We're constantly reminded that "most" law enforcement officers are decent, public-spirited men who are disgusted and alarmed by corruption and the abuse of power. By urging that law enforcement stand down from the "war on drugs," Oath Keepers could help us learn whether this is actually the case.

(My thanks to several contributors in the comments thread who corrected an error in an earlier version of this essay: I had mistakenly referred to I-85, rather than I-80, as a major east-west interstate highway.)

Be sure to tune in for Pro Libertate Radio each weeknight from 6:00-7:00 Mountain Time (7:00-8:00 Central) on the Liberty News Radio Network.

33 comments:

While the idea behind the Oath Keepers is a noble one, I am concerned that the State, on all its levels, will react to this dissent within their ranks as totalitarian states always do: with purges. (See Stalin's many purges as well as the Night of the Long Knives.) I would hate for the leaders of the Oath Keepers to meet the same fate as Ernst Rohm. The very first time the Keepers enact their stated dissent actively, a Rubicon will be immediately crossed, and an excuse for a purge will be provided.

Yet another example of Richard M. Nixon having his revenge. The war on drugs started on his watch. I would love to see the budget of the drug war then as compared to now. Earlier in the week the Obama administration said it wouldn't pursue federal charges against medicinal marijuana outlets in states that have legalized medicinal use for marijuana. I betcha the local yokels will still raid them though.

Whether a "purge" such as you describe succeeds remains to be seen, as it is becoming increasingly clear that a battered and disgruntled citizenry is about to reach its tolerance limit for abusive and criminal agents of "law enforcement." Things might indeed unfold in the manner you describe, but I think it equally likely that a principled stand by the Oath Keepers will rally large numbers of citizens to their defense in the event of a backlash by their Statist "superiors."

To paraphrase the old Chinese proverb, we are indeed living in "interesting times" that are about to become very much more so. How events will unfold, and whether liberty will ultimately prevail over totalitarian evil is anyone's guess.

i like how the OKs say they will not confiscate firearms. but what about the illegal enforcement of all of the other laws that lead right to its door? i mean what about the permits, registrations, ammo restrictions, age restrictions, gun restrictions, etc. to enforce those laws but not take a gun? i mean heck! why stop at 99%?!!! it's like when i spoke to the leader of a pro-gun group. he said he believed in the 2nd amendment but believed guns should (by govt decree) be kept out of the hands of certain people.

i agree that some folks should not be armed, but if it is a right, then what i think does not matter b/c for me to disarm a person places ME in charge/responsible for their security and if something should happen to them then their blood is on my hands.

i wish these guys well, but i have no faith in oaths. most will follow their paycheck. i'll just be smiling on my porch in montana.

"We're constantly reminded that "most" law enforcement officers are decent, public-spirited men who are disgusted and alarmed by corruption and the abuse of power."

I would be open to that possibility ("most" law enforcement officers are decent) should evidence be provided that said officers had ever taken a public stand against the "bad apples". Until that time, better safe than sorry- I don't trust any of them.

Omega Man: And when "they" do, the festivities will start and the ATF and DEA will be abolished by patriot citizens carrying guns.

I have personal experience with these "forfeitures" and they were the "straw that broke the camel's back" with me. The local police along with the local FBI/DEA assH#ts, have literally stoend thousands of dollars in, not only cash, but jewelry, dvd/cd's and other personal property from my son. I will have NO PROBLEM killing these JBT bastards (and bitches) when the SHTF. I fear that day fast approaches even though I have no desire to see my country suffer the death, destruction and chaos it will bring.

With crime way down from what it was 20 years ago. Why on earth do we have three folds more cops running around. Right now, here in the Valley that Will lives in. If some young petty crook steals a t-shirt from Walmart and doesn't have enough money on him to have paid for the t-shirt. He will be charged with felony burglary and be sent to prison, more than likely. Depending on how a pot head puts his 1 gram or 6.5 grams of pot in a container. Depends on if he/she will be charged with felony trafficking of drugs. The core problem is the criminal justice system and government at large is the people in the system are not of the same mind set as the rest of the citizen body. They feel that they are better than the rest of us run of the mill citizens. There is no limits on the amount of taxes that government can place on its citizens to loot them. That is the key and that is what the Founders tried to do with the Constitution was to put limits on government. However lazy folks who do not wanty to work real jobs and get their hands dirty flock to the parasitic government to be at the power sources to cheat decent productive citizens out of the fruits of their labor. Giving time the goose that lays the golden eggs will be dead or will refuse to lay any more eggs. Its just a matter of time, because the parasites will never do honest work. Frankly, we can talk and write about this issue of government abuse of its citizens. But the parasites in the system will never get it because, you can not talk sense to people who don't have any.

This sterling quote in your rant from a uniformed tax feeder, pasted as follows, says all that need be said:

"George Bowers, the superannuated mayor of Tenaha, insists that the seizures are justified not because of a compelling law enforcement need, but because his municipal government needs the money."

This "attitude" leads to a couple questions:

why bother with the pretense and be hypocritical?

Why not just go door to door, taking what is "needed" and offing those who dare to resist?

In the end, we are treated to the fact that the primary purpose of law enforcement is money collection for the lords and masters of the universe. It just so happens that this means that we have no protection from those we anticipate will help us when needed and, furthermore, those that we expect to protect us are merely, today, another class of criminals that has arisen among us.

There is no end to the affronts to we, the people, by the armed enforcers of the state - as long as we, the people, tolerate such and refuse to remove the power from the hands of those abusing it.

It's high time, pun intended, that this evil war on drugs come to an end once and for all. It has twisted and warped the entire social landscape all to profit those who manipulate the system or are part of its grab for treasure and power. Just take a look at the Netherlands and see where they have to close prisons for lack of drug related clients. I'm all for it.

One might reasonably ask at what point does the citizenry have the right to gun down the rats who bust down their doors? The State obviously believes it is immune from any consequences while the peons must pay over and above, even to the point of spinning off this mortal coil. When those jack booted vermin fear they're going to lose all the golden goodies or even their wretched lives then I see change coming. Otherwise it'll be lip service as usual until you're either silenced, in the grave, or whichever comes first, they don't care.

Rereading the part about Lynda Russell, the Texas attorney, I was stunned by her cheek! It's no different than if she seized someones auto and then petitioning to use said auto to drive herself around town and to the court while being challenged to the legality of the auto seizure! It boggles the mind just how corrupt they are. And I most certainly don't care not which party's basement they slithered out from.

The behavior of these corrupt law enforcement officials, including the unconstitutional DEA, draw a scary comparison to the Schutz Staffel of the 1930s..."...maybe zoon vee vill haff a special camp for you to go to...but don' worry, zoo vill be productive memberss of society... Ja...sieg heil!" (sic)

During a recent installment of Chris Matthews' cable television program, Matthews and SPLC apparatchik Mark Potok did their level best to contort comments made by Oath Keepers founder Rhodes into an endorsement of insurrectionary violence.I wasn't surprised to see this, given Matthews' penchant for full-speed-ahead blabbermouthing and his obvious statist agenda, but his insistence on turning the Oath Keepers declaration of non-participation in unlawful police actions into an immediate armed insurrection against our Dear Leaders in the Holy Government was astounding. The only positive was that I didn't see how any person with even a slight ability to think critically could not have seen through that blatant attempt to smear the group. Wold Matthews accuse Gandhi of attempting to violently overthrow the occupying British government?And that's really what bothers me I guess. All Matthews (and the rest of the State Media collaborators) has to do is create a soundbite, and it becomes common knowledge, or what some would call "the truth." The insinuation has been made--Oath Keepers are violent anti-government plotters--and so it may as well be in the minds of the media watchers.So now refusal to do violence to undeserving people has become a violent act of treason. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Thank you, Will, for pointing out that the police here in the U.S. are already an "army of occupation", and that Oath Keepers needn't wait for martial law to be declared, but can make a difference now by opposing the 'war on drugs'.

You are right on the money with this statement: "We're constantly reminded that "most" law enforcement officers are decent, public-spirited men who are disgusted and alarmed by corruption and the abuse of power. By urging that law enforcement stand down from the "war on drugs," Oath Keepers could help us learn whether this is actually the case."

Are you aware of any attempts to encourage active collaboration between these two group?

This is an issue that could unite freedom loving people at all points on the political spectrum.

It's not much, but I have posted a message on the contact pages of both organizations in hopes that if they are not already actively in collaboration they will at least consider the possibility.

During a recent installment of Chris Matthews' cable television program, Matthews and SPLC apparatchik Mark Potok did their level best to contort comments made by Oath Keepers founder Rhodes into an endorsement of insurrectionary violence.

I wasn't surprised to see this, given Matthews' penchant for full-speed-ahead blabbermouthing and his obvious statist agenda, but his insistence on turning the Oath Keepers declaration of non-participation in unlawful police actions into an immediate armed insurrection against our Dear Leaders in the Holy Government was astounding. The only positive was that I didn't see how any person with even a slight ability to think critically could not have seen through that blatant attempt to smear the group. Would Matthews accuse Gandhi of attempting to violently overthrow the occupying British government?

And that's really what bothers me I guess. All Matthews (and the rest of the State Media collaborators) has to do is create a soundbite, and it becomes common knowledge, or what some would call "the truth." The insinuation has been made--Oath Keepers are violent anti-government plotters--and so it may as well be in the minds of the media watchers.So now refusal to do violence to undeserving people has become a violent act of treason. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

The comment I submitted last night during the wee hours must have fallen into a cyberhole somewhere, but was basically just thanking you, Will, for identifying our current predicament as an occupation facilitated by the police.

I also loved your challenge to the Oath Keepers to stop enforcing the war on drugs. Brilliant!

And kudos to Sans Authoritas for his great little observation that if you feel the need to take an oath to uphold your oath, you might want to change to more honorable work!

It is quite possible that most police officers are honorable and uncorrupted. But if they (like most other Americans) are so brain-washed that they don't know to oppose the corruption, then their good intentions are useless.We need to strive to inform as much as possible so that more will be won to the side of common sense and morality. Let's not make the mistake of demonizing anyone till they prove themselves to be demons.

Back in the late 90s I was a drug-legalization campaigner, working actively with a few different organizations.

At that time, the forfeiture stuff was still a relatively new phenomenon, a bilious frosting on the already disgusting drug war cake. A group called Forfeiture Endangers American Rights was founded back then, and seems to be even more relevant now.

And it all seems to be going rather according to plan. Part of why I left the US 5 years ago was this sinister, growing, militarized culture of crime right at the heart of the state apparatus. And it goes on and on...

The Oath Keepers website says that they "will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people..." Of course, this confiscation is already happening; it's called civil forfeiture. It thereby follows that either (1) the Oath Keepers are opposed to civil forfeiture and are CURRENTLY refusing to participate in seizures under the civil forfeiture laws, or (2) their oaths are nothing but hot air.

Little People,Recite this 100 times to yourself five times a day, at the Muslim times of prayer:

"NOTHING IS WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE. EVERYTHING IS A LIE."

Consider this:

(1) Heroin is refined from opium, which is the dried juice of the opium poppy.

(2) 90% of the world's opium poppies and production of opium is in Afghanistan.

(3) 90% of the heroin entering the USA comes over the border from Mexico.

(4) The heroin from Mexico originates in Colombia, where it is refined from Afghani opium.

Now, ask yourself this: How do all those tons of opium get from Afghanistan, a landlocked country surrounded by hostile Muslim states, and which is occupied by a hundred thousand US and NATO troops, all the way halfway around the world to Colombia?

By carrier pigeon?

Does the Starship Enterprise beam it up from Kabul and then down to Cartagena?

Have the Afghans taught donkeys to walk on water?

No. The opium is flown from Afghanistan in CIA aircraft to Colombia, either via Guam, or via Dakar in Senegal. A small group of powerful people are getting immensely rich from this "war on drugs," and have been doing so ever since the Vietnam War, when the opium came from Burma and the CIA's Air America flew it out of Saigon.

What you are told is bullshit, people. Everything. All of it. 100percent. Whether or not Obama sends more troops to Afghanistan does not depend on whether Pakistani nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of Taliban crazies. No, it depends on whether certain folks in the CIA can continue to run the opium trade if we should pull out. Whether your sorry ass might get fried in a nuclear blast is not a consideration. Neither is the sorry ass of Officer Friendly who acts like a Gestapo thug. All that matters is to keep the money flowing to the right people.

Mr. Grigg, If I know these people, they are not going to come knocking and ask you who I am, as if you knew. BUT, the next time Officer Friendly pulls you over for going a half mile over the speed limit, watch your ass. He might have had the word passed down from on high (or rather, up from the depths of Hell,) that "We need to put this guy Grigg out of commission."

Remember: EVERYTHING IS A LIE. NOTHING IS WHAT IT SEEMS.

Lemuel Gulliver.

PS: Actually, that is not ALL of the story. Some of the opium also is flown in CIA planes to Kosovo, where the US and NATO also have a presence, from where it is passed to the Albanian Mafia, who refine it and ship the heroin across the Adriatic to Italy, thence the flow moves through France and Germany and finally from the German port of Kiel to Sweden and into Russia at St. Petersburg. The Russians are very pissed at the USA about their huge drug-addict problem, and would dearly love to get back into Afghanistan to take care of it at the source, but nobody is talking, least of all the media, which says only what they are told to say.

I tend to agree with you, Lem, and I thought it was sad when so many people tried to “bargain” with the government – oh, just think how much tax money you’ll make if marijuana is legalized! The government could not care less about tax money from legalizing drugs, even if they made a trillion dollars from it. They would slit their wives throats and feed their children to monsters before they gave up a drop of power over us.

And here’s another thing I’m not too crazy about LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition; I notice that most of them are retired. I heard one give a speech and said he knew the 16-year-old boy handcuffed in the back of his cruiser was not a criminal. But that didn’t stop him from arresting him, did it? And my guess is he arrested these non-criminals right up until the day he retired, as most of them did.

I have a better opinion of the Oath Keepers, however. The military, at least in my day, didn’t consider the American people the “enemy,” whereas the cops hate our stinking guts. From morning until night, they are obsessed with their hatred.